Congrats Germans! This Is How You Do a Putin Interview (Charlie Rose take notes)

Putin used Russia’s Christmas break to give an interview for the German tabloid Bild-Zeitung (see here and here).

Unusually for the Western media, the German interviewers proved to be both well-informed and intelligent and avoided cliches, giving Putin a good opportunity to explain himself concisely on a wide range of topics.

The fact the interviewers from Bild-Zeitung conducted the interview so intelligently incidentally shows that the true causes of the present tensions in international relations are well understood in Germany – including by the media there – even if they are not openly articulated.

NATO Expansion – “not an inch east”

On most of the topics covered by the interview, Putin had little to say that was new. This issue was the exception.

As is well-known, the Russians have an established grievance that following the fall of the Berlin Wall NATO was expanded eastward in contradiction to promises given to Russia.

There has in recent years been a sustained attempt by some academic historians in the US to deny this.

Supposedly no promise not to extend NATO eastward was ever given, and the well-known statements – some of them public – made by various Western officials over the course of 1990 that appear to make that promise supposedly only referred to eastward deployment of NATO military installations in the former East Germany and were only intended to apply whilst the USSR was still in existence.

This denial is scarcely credible, and has been flatly contradicted by some Western officials who were actually involved in the talks.

Putin claims he recently ordered research of the Russian archives and that further confirmation the promise was given has been found there.

Putin refers to talks between Valentin Falin – the then head of the Soviet Communist Party’s International Department – and various German politicians, which he claims have never been made public up to now.

Since Valentin Falin was a Communist Party official records of his meetings would have been kept by the Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee rather than by the Foreign Ministry, which may be why they have been overlooked up to now.

Putin claims these records not only provide further proof the promise was given, but show that one of Falin’s most important interlocutors – the prominent SPD politician Egon Bahr – even suggested recasting the entire European alliance system to include Russia, and warned of future dangers if this were not done.

Bahr has just died, and it may be the true reason the Russians are only disclosing what he told them now was to spare him embarrassment.

If so then Putin’s disclosure of his conversation in 1990 with Falin may have been intended as much as a reminder to contemporary German politicians – Merkel, Gabriel and Steinmeier – that the Russians keep a complete record of what they tell them, as it was to cast light on the question of what promises were given in 1990 on the question of NATO expansion.

My own view is that though a promise not to extend NATO eastward was definitely and repeatedly given the Western politicians and officials who gave it with a few notable exceptions never had any serious intention of keeping it.

Bahr – who I remember well – was no such exception. His grandiose talk of a pan-European alliance including Russia was in my opinion just another example of a German politician pulling the wool over the Russians’ eyes in order to make it easier for the Germans to achieve their goal – which was German unification within NATO.

I strongly suspect Putin thinks the same thing.

His single most interesting comment in the whole interview was his admission that Russia was itself to blame for trusting the West too much, and for not defending its interests vigorously:

“We have failed to assert our national interests, while we should have done that from the outset. Then the whole world could have been more balanced.”

That comment is as much a pointer to how the Russians will act in the future, as it is about the past.

The “Right” of East European nations to join NATO and the EU

Anyone who discusses the issue of NATO’s and the EU’s eastward expansion with one of its advocates invariably comes up against the argument that the Russians have no right to complain about NATO’s and the EU’s eastern expansion because it is the right of the people of eastern Europe to have it.

I saw this argument used again just a few days ago in a discussion between the British journalist Peter Hitchens – who opposes NATO’s and the EU’s eastward expansion – and a group of British students.

It should be said clearly that this is a bogus argument.

East European states have no “right” to join NATO or the EU. They have a right to apply to join NATO and the EU.

NATO and the EU have no obligation – legal or moral – to accept that application if it is made. On the contrary, they have a duty to refuse that application if accepting it threatens peace and contradicts promises they made previously to the Russians.

As for the Russians, they have as much right to object to NATO’s and the EU’s eastern expansion as the east Europeans have to demand it. In fact, given that they were repeatedly promised it would not happen, they have more right.

Whenever this point is made, it always seems to come as a surprise – even though it is in essence no different from what Westerners tell the Russians – that they are free to apply to join NATO or the EU if they wish, but there is no chance they will ever be admitted.

It is striking therefore to see Putin – for the first time to my knowledge – publicly make this point:

“Does the (NATO) Charter say that NATO is obliged to admit everyone who would like to join? No. There should be certain criteria and conditions. If there had been political will, if they had wanted to, they could have done anything. They just did not want to. They wanted to reign. So they sat on the throne. And then? And then came crises that we are now discussing.”

“Everyone says that the Minsk Agreements must be implemented and then the sanctions issue may be reconsidered.

This is beginning to resemble the theatre of the absurd because everything essential that needs to be done with regard to implementing the Minsk Agreements is the responsibility of the current Kiev authorities.

You cannot demand that Moscow do something that needs to be done by Kiev. For example, the main, the key issue in the settlement process is political in its nature and the constitutional reform lies in its core. This is Point 11 of the Minsk Agreements. It expressly states that the constitutional reform must be carried out and it is not Moscow that is to make these decisions.

Look, everything is provided for: Ukraine is to carry out a constitutional reform with its entry into force by the end of 2015 (Paragraph 11). Now 2015 is over.”

I would add that this exchange provides a good example of Putin’s extraordinary knowledge and mastery of detail. When the German interviewers tried to trip him by misrepresenting the content of the Minsk Agreement, he had the facts at his fingertips and immediately put them right:

“Question: The constitutional reform must be carried out after the end of all military hostilities. Is that what the paragraph says?

Vladimir Putin: No, it is not.

Look, I will give you the English version. What does it say? Paragraph 9 – reinstatement of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine based on the Ukrainian law on constitutional reform by the end of 2015, provided that Paragraph 11 has been fulfilled, which stipulates constitutional reform.

Consequently, the constitutional reform and political processes are to be implemented first, followed by confidence building on the basis of those reforms and the completion of all processes, including the border closure. I believe that our European partners, both the German Chancellor and the French President should scrutinise these matters more thoroughly.”

Not only does Putin continue to insist that the change of power in Ukraine in February 2014 was unconstitutional and illegal and was not a revolution but a coup, but he carefully avoids using the term “Ukrainian government” to refer to the authorities in Kiev. Instead he uses words like “Kiev” or “the present Kiev authorities” to refer to them.

It is difficult to avoid the impression that Putin – and presumably the whole of the Russian government – deep down do not consider the present government in Kiev to be legitimate – and will not do so until there have been fresh elections in Ukraine following agreement on a new constitution.

Crimea

Putin said nothing new on this subject, but he did repeat an important point that he has repeatedly made ever since Crimea voted to join Russia in March 2014.

This is that contrary to claims repeatedly made by Western governments and by the Western media, Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its subsequent decision to join Russia are in compliance with international law as set out by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Kosovo, and as was argued in that case by the legal representatives of the West’s governments.

The fact Putin’s interpretation of the Advisory Opinion is right is shown not just by the text of Advisory Opinion itself.

It is also shown by the way Western governments and the Western media have suppressed all discussion of it so that the Western public knows nothing about it.

This even though – as Putin’s interview shows – his German interviewers certainly know of it.

I would add that if Putin’s interpretation of the Advisory Opinion was wrong, Ukraine would certainly have brought a claim against Russia to the International Court of Justice.

Ukraine constantly litigates in other courts against Russia on other far less important subjects. It beggars belief if they really thought they would win a case over the far more important issue of Crimea they would not have brought one by now.

The fact Ukraine has not brought a claim against Russia to the International Court of Justice shows it knows – and has been warned by Western governments – it would lose.

The Russian economy

The interview concentrated mainly on foreign policy. However Putin was careful to say something about the state of the Russian economy, even though he was not asked a direct question about it.

Putin gave the figures for the Russian economy in 2015 – a contraction of 3.8% in GDP, 3.3% in industrial output, and inflation of 12.9% (the latter figure has now been confirmed by Rosstat).

“As to the worst harm inflicted by today’s situation, first of all on our economy, it is the harm caused by the falling prices on our traditional export goods.

However, both the former and the latter have their positive aspects. When oil prices are high, it is very difficult for us to resist spending oil revenues to cover current expenses. I believe that our non-oil and gas deficit had risen to a very dangerous level. So now we are forced to lower it. And this is healthy…

The total deficit is quite small. But when you subtract the non-oil and gas deficit, then you see that the oil and gas deficit is too large. In order to reduce it, such countries as Norway, for example, put a significant proportion of non-oil and gas revenues into the reserve. It is very difficult, I repeat, to resist spending oil and gas revenues to cover current expenses. It is the reduction of these expenses that improves the economy.”

The Russian budget undoubtedly does have scope for spending cuts, and this together with the continued fall of the rouble in line with oil prices should suffice to keep the deficit within controllable limits even if oil prices continue to fall.

The major problem for Russia caused by the continued oil price fall is not its effect on the budget. It is that it is forcing the Central Bank to keep interest rates high, thereby prolonging the recession.

The Middle East

Putin broke no new ground here, though as is always the case now he made it perfectly clear that he thinks it is the regime change strategy pursued by the US and some of its allies since 2001 that has destabilised the region.

Outside the still powerful and vocal community of Western liberal interventionists and neocons, there are few now who would disagree with him.

However Putin did once again explain the motives behind Russia’s intervention in Syria.

“I can tell you precisely what we do not want to happen: we do not want the Libyan or Iraqi scenario to be repeated in Syria……. In my view, no effort should be spared in strengthening legitimate governments in the region’s countries.

That also applies to Syria. Emerging state institutions in Iraq and in Libya must be revived and strengthened. Situations in Somalia and other countries must be stabilised. State authority in Afghanistan must be reinforced. However, it does not mean that everything should be left as is. Indeed, this new stability would underpin political reforms.”

In other words Russia’s current support for President Assad is not an end in itself. Russia has no geopolitical interests in Syria or in the region. However it sees the spread of chaos and violent jihadism into Syria and elsewhere as exceptionally dangerous – first and foremost for itself, but also for the world in general – and is determined to do what it can to prevent it.

The Russian intervention in Syria is intended to stabilise the situation there, with the Russians however pushing for a political solution to the conflict in parallel with their military effort.

Again, there are few people now outside the still very powerful Western liberal interventionist and neocon community who would openly disagree with this analysis, though there are some who might question whether Russia’s motives really are as uncomplicated as Putin says they are.

On the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Putin was very careful not to take sides, pointing instead to Russia’s good relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran, whilst making it clear that Russia’s friendship is primarily with Iran:

“We have very good relations with Iran and our partnership with Saudi Arabia is stable.”

Summary

The interview with Bild-Zeitung shows Putin at his most articulate.

If he broke no new ground, he clearly relished the opportunity to expand on points he now repeatedly makes.

The intelligence of his interviewers, and the fact they were for once well-informed, gave him a good opportunity to do this.

The interview with Bild-Zeitung covered more topics than I have discussed. It included for example a discussion of Russia’s relations with Germany, and of the nature of Putin’s relationship with Angela Merkel.

Here – for completely understandable reasons – Putin did not go beyond banalities, though he was at last given an opportunity to scotch the fantastic fable that he deliberately set his Labrador dog on Merkel in order to unsettle and discomfort her.

As he says – without doubt truthfully – he was simply unaware of Merkel’s fear of dogs when he introduced his dog to her, and he apologised to her when he found out about it.

This simple and undoubtedly true explanation will – of course – be suppressed or ignored, when stories about this incident are again told in the West.

The interview did also contain one very striking omission.

This was about Russia’s relations with China, a subject the interviewers never brought up.

This reflects Western inability to come to terms with the reality of the Russian Chinese strategic partnership, rather than in any lack of importance fot this issue.

The very unwillingness – or inability – of Westerners to talk about it, is in fact a sign of its importance.

Overall the impression of Putin that comes across from the interview is of a calm and confident man, who has thought long and hard about the issues he talks about, and who has discussed them widely and in depth with other members of the Russian government and with his advisers.

There is no doubt the views that Putin expresses are those of the government as a whole, and that Putin believes the things he says, and is sure that what he says is right.

As a result Putin is able to speak in a calm and measured way, avoiding the histrionics and hyperbole Western leaders now routinely engage in.

The only point where Putin seems to have spoken with emotion is when he angrily rebutted Western claims the Russian airforce in Syria is deliberately targeting civilians.

Since Putin unquestionably believes in the things he says, and since all the indications are that the rest of the government agrees with him and supports him as he says them – as does Russian society in general – Western hopes or expectations of any sudden change in Russia’s course are unlikely to be fulfilled.

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Name:

E-mail:

Comment:*

66 Comments

“Mercury moves on in his paradox run backwards through Capricorn towards a final
intensive course of the week in official and “official” message. Good example of the Capricorn-message this week received by Mercury, coming back from the short flight in spiritual realm of Aquarius, re-transforming vision into word, is the contribution of Saker, a former military-Analyst, in his blog to his worldwide community among which nolens volens also the chronicler is to find, is the contribution of Saker and his slightly wonderful commentariat fitting to the activated archetypus of the eon.”

The heads of state had a substantive discussion on issues of settling the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East with a focus on finding ways to resolve the Syrian crisis, as well as the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Vladimir Putin stressed, in particular, the need for Kiev’s full and rigorous observance of the Minsk Agreements, including establishing a direct dialogue with Donbass, reaching an agreement with them on the constitutional amendments under preparation, holding local elections and the entry into force of laws on special status and amnesty.

Both Presidents noted the importance of the upcoming contacts between the two nations’ representatives on Ukrainian issues.

The leaders expressed mutual support for the UN’s efforts to organise talks at the end of January in Geneva between the Syrian government and the representative delegation of opposition circles with the aim of reaching political settlement in Syria in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Vladimir Putin once again stressed the need to create a broad coalition for fighting ISIS and other extremist organisations, emphasising the need for quickly preparing lists of terrorist structures and refusing double standards in labelling particular groups.

The Presidents discussed certain aspects of bilateral contacts in various formats, including in the military sphere, aimed at consolidating efforts in the fight against the threat of terrorism in the Middle East.

The leaders also called for deescalating tensions following the crisis in the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In light of the North Korean leadership’s statement on testing a hydrogen bomb, the heads of state of the United States and Russia noted that, if confirmed, this would be a gross violation of corresponding UN Security Council resolutions and should meet with a harsh international response. At the same time, Vladimir Putin confirmed Russia’s consistent position in favour of diplomatic settlement of the Korean problem. To avoid further escalation of the situation, the President of Russia spoke in favour of all relevant sides exercising maximum restraint and not taking action that could incite military escalation in Northeast Asia.

The leaders also touched on other issues of mutual interest. The conversation was frank and constructive.

I really would hope that Russia and China stop falling into the sanctions trap through the UN. I consider that an “original sin” in International relations. It doesn’t help anyone but the West,and never has. They need to fully break with the idea of agreeing to sanctions on states. And only work for negotiated settlements. Or adopt a “one size fits all ” policy. If they sanction North Korea over the nuclear issue. Insist on sanctions on Israel for nuclear weapons. If the West won’t agree (which they won’t) then refuse them on North Korea as well.

The question is – why the Russian and Chinese leaders keep “falling into the sanctions trap?”

They also keep “falling into” other political and economic traps as well.

As you wrote: “If they sanction North Korea over the nuclear issue. Insist on sanctions on Israel for nuclear weapons.”

We probably agree on the answer to the question.

In 1950, Russia (then Soviet Union), did not veto the United Nation’s Security Council Resolution 84, which supported military action against North Korea. The USSR was “absent.” Yugoslavia (having no power to veto), “abstained” rather than vote to defend their fellow ‘Workers’ State.”

China, under the leadership of Mao Zedong (and not at that time a member of the United Nations), rescued North Korea from the imperialist military alliance.

North Korea, (which is not a “Democratic Republic),” would benefit greatly from allowing their people to rule, rather than being ruled. The same is true for China. It must also be clear that they, and all other Nations, regardless of the shape of their government, (remember the Ethiopian Monarchy of Haile Selassie?), deserve all the support they can get when they are victims of imperialist manipulation and imperialist aggression.

There is more to that story. The USSR had been boycotting the UNSC since January become the UNSC seat had been given to “The Republic of China” (Taiwan) instead of the real China (Communist China). So the US picked a time when they knew the USSR wouldn’t be there to shove that resolution through the UNSC. After that the USSR realized how important it was to always be at the meetings. As for Yugoslavia that was at the time of the Tito-Stalin troubles. And so Yugoslavia didn’t want to intervene in support of a pro-Stalin Communist Party in North Korea. But at the same time didn’t want to vote “for” the US intervention. So went for the middle ground.

Either way, the Russians and Tito’s Yugoslavia failed to show solidarity with Korea.

The Yugoslav abstention was inexcusable. They were in no physical danger from the war 10,000 miles away in Korea. All of Korea was bombed flat in that war.

You might be correct about the Soviet Union’s excuse, but I am not sure that the Soviets told the truth about why they just happened to be absent at the UNSC – just when one of the most important votes in history was to take place.

China has an excuse. They were not yet a member of the UN.

Some things we may never know.

And in Iran’s territorial waters.

My Grandfather was in the US Navy (Captain – career WWI & II). He might be rolling over in his grave if he could see the pictures of the heavily armed American Navy personnel surrendering – to anyone.

Why did Staln allow the Chinese communists to get armed with Japanese weapons? That directly allowed them to take power and the US did not do anything to help the Chinese government. even though they were supposedly allies. Both the USSR and USA allowed communist china to rise.

The US supports the original government in china, external government in Yugoslavia and Syria.. So it is not the country that matters but who is supposedly to rule… Control of the country seems secondary. But only in countries with US interests.. Countries like South Africa and Rhodesia with external governments that had the majority support of their populations did not matter. So it is not even a popular government that matters. Hey lets just grab someone pliant and then tell the world they represent their country.

Although I am surprised they did not do this in Libya and Iraq and did not work in Syria although they tried really hard to get some guys with 1% support in some villages as a legitimate government.

And how does the Palestinians not have a UN rep? There was a country there. Even if part of the country went to Israel, they cant just take the Palestinian state and throw it out as it was a UN mandated British protectorate. Like all British colonies, the UN seat should have gone to the Palestinian reps when the British left.

Syria is not happy about not knowing who, which groups of “any” opposition , whether Syrian Democratic Forces or terrorist groups etc , will be in attendance at any future meeting-I’m not sure how the Saudi ‘s coalition agreed Syrian ‘opposition” groups will interact in any meaningful way as well-the general feeling? is that there will be political confrontations??? that will still **** it all up?????

OSCE went to Donbass yesterday to meet people, with reference to a so called Minsk 3 proposed by the current OSCE Deputy and Kiev, which has been denounced by Moscow. So I wonder what happened.

So has a frank and constructive call sorted all this out? I am hesitant to believe it, I fear the Syrian talks will be deliberately targeted to fail by non Syrian-Rus-Iran participants, to “blame” Rus in any way and to show the group just mentioned that they are ineffective( following the continuing msm narrative), to hijack it with collusion of UN, or even subvert it away from UN to exclude Rus so it can’t use its veto-a system mechanism which has been recently been proposed to drop remember.

I still believe Iraq should get into this game much more convincingly with Iran and Rus and Syria.

bit more:
KIEV, January 13 /TASS/. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande discussed the implementation of the Minsk agreements by telephone on Wednesday. READ ALSO Ukraine Contact Group members agree to release over 50 people on both sides of conflict “The leaders discussed further steps on the path of implementing the Minsk agreements, including the coordination of modalities of holding the local elections in some districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions according to Ukrainian laws and re-establishment of Ukraine’s full control over the state border,” the Ukrainian president’s press service said. Poroshenko reiterated the importance of linking all the steps provided by the Minsk agreements to concrete dates in 2016. The sides agreed to continue their contacts next week.

all of ‘em stalling as far as I can see……………though few days ago VP said he had been in contact with M-H to emphasise the need to stick to the essence of Minsk………..i had posted a link to an opinion article some days ago-Poro will just delay, procrastinate as much as possible until there is a threat to his job then he’ll most likely try to restart the war by provocation or false flag, any excuse…………..

The ziomedia’s attempt to portray Russia’s stabilization of Syria and the partial defeat of Daesh as a total failure , has turned into a major disaster…..for the ziomedia . The attempt to portray the Syrian Army as responsible for the hunger of its citizens in Syrian towns still controlled by the “rebels” (terrorists) is an even worse failure ,that destroys the last vestiges of credibility after the use of fake pictures or photos of different conflicts ,in different countries. Looks like they can not even lie well anymore .

I agree with you “theoretically”. But in practical terms,it works for the West. I constantly see posts on social media about the “Syrian government starving the people in the besieged town”. The message that those are fakes is only reaching the informed. The mass of people in the West are still believing the lies the MSM puts out. So while its good that more people understand the truth. We are never (at least for a long time) going to enlighten the mass population. I’ve stopped hoping for that. I’m of the opinion that ,right should be done,regardless of whether anyone in the West agree’s or not.

Putin’s interview: He was very diplomatic about the MSF hospital hit by the US military. In face the US military does have high value targets which justify a certain proportion of civilian casualties. Also ( their admission) 90% of drone strike deaths are civilians. The Brits are helping the Saudis blow up schools, hospitals, factories etc.by their intelligence pin pointing of targets. Putin is very, very generous in his estimations of Wesern military intentions. Or maybe the Russians are just so much more efficient and can’t imagine the extent of the US military’s incompetence.?

I have a sense that Russia values direct contacts with the US military and Putin may be reticent to be critical of military execution of political agendas, preferring to be critical of the political decisions that lead to such incidents. In light of the Seymour Hersh piece on military cooperation in Syria and the continued Russian – US cooperation on the ISS project I think it is apparent that significant technical and practical links persist despite the persistent chorus of political rhetoric and grandstanding that is so apparent. If we are to avoid another great power war such lines of communication and respect must be preserved. Why didn’t the US attack Iran or Syria? Lack of will by the political elite? Or inability to coerce the military to sign off on such madness? I think this is one of the reasons that the US State Dept and elements of the CIA have been so involved in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria etc – they are under political control and remain relatively unrestrained by realistic, practical thinking.

I think of it this way. Suppose I were facing Putin on the mat, and we were in combat. Even as we’re going through the moves, and each one is striving to take the other down, I find a pen placed into my hand, with a document to study and sign.

Saker and many others have explained to us how the Russians consider diplomacy a weapon of war. Even as the wars are proceeding in what we see as military terms, the wars are equally proceeding in what we see as diplomatic terms.

So what I mean by this is that Putin won’t throw accusations and words around without a purpose – they are much too valuable as ammunition to be wasted. He spoke diplomatically to make his point, and diplomatic sensibilities on the opposing side understood the point.

Of course the Russian planners understand extremely well all the actions that the west takes – we even see indications (as Mercouris points out regarding the Egon Bahr reference by Putin) that Moscow records everything in its archives, but only uses a piece of information for a purpose and when the time is best – and furthermore can wait for decades to use the information if necessary.

Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, gave a fine interview, to, as Alexander Mercouris noted, fine, and fair German interviewers. Putin effectively criticized the American imperialist military alliance, NATO, exposing its continuing aggression toward Russia. He also referred to their attacks against Serbia.

What does not fit in this picture, is a Political leader who speaks the truth. That is what makes Vladimir Putin so unusual. He speaks the truth with rare quiet sincere emotion. Indeed, one can learn much from listening closely.

Putin resembles, closely, the martyred American President, (and legitimate war hero in the struggle against the fascist alliance in World war II), John F. Kennedy. Kennedy also held brilliant Press Conferences, where he spoke, mostly, the truth.

Neither Putin, nor Kennedy spoke all the truth. They made and make secret deals, (compromises might be the better word). Both had Visions and Causes; both accomplished much. Kennedy had a 1000 day time limit (time being, Einstein’s 4th dimension), for his accomplishments, and Vladimir Putin, has a different handicap; he must achieve his goals against the porous background of a corrupt Russian 5th Column-elite, as well as the wreckage of the dead end of the Soviet era, and against the furious opposition of the dangerous Zionist American Financial-elite.

By way of historical comparison, President Kennedy, and the idealistic young America of the early 1960s, were derailed by the terror of the Oligarch’s coup d’etat in Dallas. America decayed, as, at the same time, Russia, under the leadership of an aging and unstable political pyramid, was also in decay. One generation after the death of the American Republic on November 22, 1963, the so-called ‘Communist’ leaders, of Russia collapsed, and gave away the store. They divided Russia’s wealth among their Oligarchs, and allowed the zionist-imperialists to run roughshod over Mother Russia, and, as, at the same time, with no power to restrain them, they conquered the nations of both West, and Central Europe.

NATO, and the EU, and the IMF, were some of the organizations that robbed the European Nations of their sovereignty, their very identity, their freedoms, and their humanity. One world, one currency, one voice, under the Financial elites’ Euro, Zionist media, a Zionist United States Nations, rather than a United Nations-UN. You insert the verb.

My dad took me to an anti-NATO demonstration in Brussels (some decades ago before 1990). We had no idea the end of Lenin’s Dream was so near. We did not understand that nations and peoples were being destroyed, along with the political marginalization of both the old labeled ‘Working’ and ‘Middle Classes.’

Back to the Future:

Significantly, Russia’s President, Putin, may be recorded in History, as a restorer of nations. He is effectively restoring his native Russia (emotionally, morally, politically, and economically). He is leading the Russian Nation in a daring rescue of Syria. Before he is finished, he might spark a National revival in Europe.

It has begun in France, where rebels from the old political ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ are putting up a strong show. In France’s last election, 6.8 million voted for love of Nation, in preference to One World control by criminal and terrorist Oligarchs, who love only $wealth and uni-polar world power.

Taking a cue from Vladimir Putin:

America must restore its Republic, in the image of its creators, with the fine touches added by the new generations!

That’s one heck of a vision, Mr Peter J. Thank you for putting on the table the concept that even the United States might perhaps somehow find its troubled way to redemption.

Thank you for your description of Kennedy’s murder as a “terror” of the oligarch’s coup d’etat, and a thing that destroyed the youthful trajectory of change. I remember when Bobby Kennedy was taken down, someone said – I can’t even remember who now – “Oh my God, they’re killing everyone!”

All my heroes have been dead for a long time. Putin is alive. There is hope in this world.

Kennedy’s father was himself a top Oligarch (and ruthless mobster) and Kennedy not half as benevolent as the Hollywood myth – that for whatever reason the whole world has accepted – wants us to believe.

“In France’s last election, 6.8 million voted for love of Nation, in preference to One World control”

Don’t be fooled. Nothing good will come from the Front National. The controllers will simply use it as a stepping stone for furthering the Fascist agenda.

I realize that you said “Please” and that you are not directly forbidding me from stating my opinion.

I plead guilty to comparing Vladimir Putin to John Kennedy, on several occasions. I have been caught in the act. My bad! I’ll probably do it again.

Kennedy was not his father; although (in defense of Joseph Kennedy-his father was not a supporter of English imperialism). Kennedy’s personal achievements in his 1000 days were considerable. He had an unbreakable alliance with Martin L. King, refused to allow the American Air Force to bomb Cuba during the CIA terrorist landings on Cuba’s Playa Giron, (which had been planned under the previous administration of President Eisenhower),effectively sabotaged the unconstitutional attempt to overthrow the Cuban Revolutionary government), and, with an assist from a competent Nikita Khrushchev, avoided a World War III nuclear tragedy, among many other notable accomplishments.

A few insertions about the Eisenhower administration:

From 1952 to 1960, Eisenhower allowed the CIA and FBI to reign supreme. In 1954, the Democratically elected government of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown. The tragedies occurring after Kennedy’s (early) death, must be taken into account when evaluating his worth. Subsequently, the American government, with an assist from the Zionist army, slaughtered 100,000 Native Guatemalans.

Kennedy was actively reversing the tide of previous American, as well as British and French imperialism, until his death.

I would not worry so much about the “Fascist agenda,” of the French nationalists, but would pay much attention to the ongoing terrorist Fascist agenda of the Zionist American imperialists, who has destroyed a dozen Nations, and murdered millions, since November 22, 1963.

Nationalism and Patriotism are not Fascism. Ask Ms. Nuland about Fascism.

I rather beg to differ. Nationalism and patriktism are closely linked with with the extreme far right and Nazism. While it is ok to have a sense of pride in ones country this becomes a corrosive and malign thing when combined with xenophobia against “foreigners” or “immigrants” as it so often is.
Hitler and his Nazis harnessed these very feelings of patriotism and nationalism in his so called third reich by making the Germans feel they were aryan “supermen” ordained by destiny to rule over the “untermensch”.
Very dangerous things are nationalism and patriotism in the wrong hands.

I would not conflate nationalism and patriotism lightly. One noticeable distinction is nationalism projects expansionist visions, while patriotism is more concerned with the defence of cultural identity.

The former sees a country and its borders as a launch platform, the latter sees a country as its fortress. They are fundamentally opposing stances.

Whether nationalism/patriotism is reactionary or progressive depends ultimately on the related question which camp the concerned nation belongs to: Oppressed or oppressor nations. To equate — morally and politically — the nationalism and patriotism of an Oppressor Nation with that of an Oppressed Nation is a common, arrogant “Earth Is Flat” article of faith usually promoted by Western trotskyists and anarchists, also known as The Imperial Left. The absurdity of such an outlook could only escape the wilfully blind: On one hand we have Pindo nationalism and patriotism openly celebrating wanton killing and destruction across the entire planet for the totally parasitic enrichment of selfsame Pindos. On the other hand we have the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Russians, the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America struggling to free themselves of the stranglehold of their mortal Zionazi enemy who makes many of their lives pure Hell On Earth.

The EU countries are an interesting case in this regard. The surge in nationalism and patriotism within most individual EU member states at present is, ultimately, an extreme manifestation of disappointment among a reactionary and chauvinist petty bourgeoisie feeling that the EU has failed and/or betrayed them. Equally reactionary but a tenfold more stupid is the “nationalism” in favour of the EU pertaining to Psheks, Balts, and Ukro-trash. Just silly beyond laughable.

Re “Kennedy’s father was himself a top Oligarch (and ruthless mobster) and Kennedy not half as benevolent as the Hollywood myth – that for whatever reason the whole world has accepted – wants us to believe.”

I disagree. Kennedy was a lot better than a large portion of the world wants us to believe, constantly obsessing on his sex life, etc.
Kennedy genuinely wanted to end the Cold War. Kennedy stood up to the MIC. Kennedy was about to start the pullout in Vietnam.

Why, in heaven’s sake, do you think he was taken out? He was threatening the status quo bigtime. I ‘ll never forget where I was when . . . the nuclearly disarmament agreement was announced, in June

Sorry, I didn’t finish my reply re Kennedy.
i was saying, I’ll never forget where I was when the Nuclear Test Ban Treat was announced, in August 1963. Driving in my boyfriend’s car, north of Boston, on a sunny summer day. I remember the enormous sense of relief I felt, and the promise of a better, safer world.

Now we know that Kennedy had opened back channels to both Castro and Khrushchev. Kennedy genuinely wanted peace among nations, and mutual respect for different systems of govt. No way was that going to be allowed to continue. The CIA took him out, after at least one trial run, in Chicago, a few weeks before Dallas. The Dulles Brothers knew the score, and very likely Georgy Bush Sr, as well.

Kennedy’s father =/ Kennedy. That is hogwash.
I recommend James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable.

Its as clear as spring water that the Neocons ,Ziocons ,and Natocons are a direct threat to Planet Earth and Humanity .This disease must be eradicated if the future generations have any chance to drink clean ‘spring water’ and participate in what the world needs at the moment (protecting Gaia). Its something called ‘Mutual Aid ‘ . Petr Kropotkin wrote about it a while back and its a hell of a lot better and more egalitarian then the Capitalist B.S referred to as ‘social Darwinism’.

I love Alexander Mercouris.
Mercouris is one of the best CrossTalk guests.
I know him mostly from that venue.
Like Putin, he is calm, measured, and confident of his positions.
He is the ideal observer to comment on the Bild-Putin interview.

Hi Katherine,
I totally agree with you. I love Alexander Mercouris too. Love watching him on RT. Even my 12 year old son knows who he is, can sit and listen to Crosstalk for half an hour, and tries to imitate Alexander’s way of talking. Doesn’t this show that not all is lost for the young generation?
Saker’s female reader

“Unusually for the Western media, the German interviewers proved to be both well-informed and intelligent and avoided cliches” – NOT EVEN CLOSE, they, just as usual, used LOADED, DISRESPECTFUL, and MANIPULATIVE questions. Did author of this article pay attention?

A few examples:
“BILD: Since you are talking about a great challenge: is Crimea, by comparison, really worth damaging Russia’s relationship with the West that severely?”

“BILD: Mr President, by now the international community has virtually ostracized Russia. You are no longer allowed to participate in the G8 meetings of the leaders of the most important industrial nations. How much are you hurt by this measure?”

“BILD: The Syrian President Assad bombs his own population and is responsible for many thousands of deaths. That is a fact. Is Assad your ally? If so, why?”

also agreed..there bias, that Germany is always right, can never be wrong.still supports sanctions despite VP saying Merkel is sincere……………….come on VP, really expose who are the countries and organisations that are breaking international law by funding terrorism in Syria………….that was your chance……….

Well then, you are right, but why did you shout – it is forbidden on here – (Absolutely no use of CAPITAL LETTERS “)

The Moderation policies and the blind eyes turned to those favoured by Moderators on here would never stand up to intelligent scrutiny.Moderators move questionable comments to a queue that is reviewed by Saker for approval/disapproval … moderators job is only to filter the comments for saker … in addition please note mod rule 3 Any comment designed to make me angry will make me angry and will be removed in anger. … mod-hs

Alexander Mercouris, I thought it was Mercurialis and had to check the spelling, you have a very nice name. Mercury, messenger of the Gods. I only know you from there.

Yes, they stick to the Russophobe script, in deference to their cultural/political milieu (and editorial board), yet managed to open the door for some of Putin’s most cogent points. He surely expected the standard smears and red herrings, dismissing them as a matter of course. But there’s a second level that carries a more penetrating message, and for some reason somebody decided to let it through. I think that’s good. Remember, Germany-Russia alignment has always been the greatest threat to Atlanticist hegemony.

Sure, they asked the typically loaded questions, but they let Putin respond without interrupting and piling on another load of loaded questions and trying to corner him. That is a big difference, IMHO. Compare with what Charlie Rose does: Rose attempts to totally dominate his “guests” with his negatively posed questions that are not really questions, his refusal to listen to what the guests say, his know-it-all attitude, his constant interrupting.
I must say that although now I am not a fan of Erdogan, I was when I saw his effective pushback with Charlie Rose.
Erdogan did not let Smarmy Rose dominate *him*! For that he deserves a small measure of . . . perhaps not respect, but at the very least, appreciation.
Katherine

I think people miss the point, It is not that western MSM can not do a good interview.. It is that if they write something the editors don’t like it don’t get published. And that coms from the very top.. After a while if keep writing the same way, they show you the door.. As we saw from Hersch, since most media are owned by like 4 people, and they all follow the script then nothing outside that is allowed..

Did anyone notice that more than 10 reporters and editors for AJ resigned when they were told what to write about Syria.. Out of like 50, only 10 had the moral and ethics to not make up propaganda while the rest from the very beginning were just writing garbage without even being told to do so because that is what their editors wanted. but when it became a policy a few actually had the balls to not be able to look themselves in the mirror.. But on average MSM is not just biased since that does mean they write the truth from a certain point of view but they are liars because they make stuff up and that Is nothing but propaganda. One of the last ones to hold out the Huffington post that paid like $200K to get soviet satellite images of Iraqi tanks massing on the border.. is now at the front of this propaganda blitz.. They were bought out since they did not conform, the advertisers stopped using them.. So it is not just the Media.. The imperial empire wants conformity to their worldview.. Like Donald said, we are an empire and we make up the reality that others have to follow.. It is not facts, it is just made up..

In a recent interview (Oct. 2014) , Gorbachev explained in detail that NATO made no promise not to expand eastward. Now read closely, these are Gorbachev’s words:

The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

But some people just cling to their myths, all evidence to the contrary. They know better than the people in the room that negotiated. Because if they *want* it to be true, it *must* be true. Get over it. Gorby messed up, re-writing history to make it the way you wish it would have been is juvenile.

I have heard gorby make exactly opposite statements, in particular in an interview with sophie shevardnadze on rt during the last two years, I’m sorry I don’t have a link or a transcript but he most definitely made the complete opposite argument,

just shows what a complete asset he is to those over the pond & what a traitor he was & is to the russian realm & the russki narod that were made under attack by his policies, impoverished & the wealth of russia expropriated & downright stolen, the country basically underwent what cynthia mckinney calls ‘sociocide’, it is thus even so much more extraordinary what mr putin has accomplished in these last 15 years.

I will look for the link when a new day dawns, call me juvenile but I heard what I heard, who pays the piper?

“It is true that the spirit of these [German unification] agreements were broken because we agreed that NATO infrastructure would not expand into East Germany, which creates a certain spirit. When they began to accept new countries into NATO in the 1990s. That violated the spirit of the agreements,” he said.

So here again he admits no agreement was made for NATO not to expand to incorporate Warsaw Pact countries (other than former GDR). Of course if you want to buy the myth then you convert the “spirit” of an agreement on something else, but it is not an agreement, and he explicitly made that point in the later interview.

And frankly the situation with East Germany (Germany negotiating with Russia to withdraw) and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact are entirely different. At that point USSR should have entered into a treaty with Warsaw Pact countries not to join a hostile military alliance. But they didn’t. End of story.

The US negotiators and the Germans at those talks have backed up Putin’s statements. So I think its clear as he said Russia let themselves be tricked. They just need to learn from that to always follow their own interests and not agree with the West. As an example,if those bases in Poland are considered a threat to Russia. Destroy them at the start. And if NATO thinks about responding destroy those countries as well. I have to agree with you. Just “ending the story” is always the best idea.

Well that’s where politeness comes into play and it shows weakness, it should be in the national security directive that nato bases close to the border will be the very first targets for a nuclear strike.

Because these guys are not using the bases to get security but to milk some money into their own coffers. The people buy this bullshit.. But the people need to know those bases make them a direct target. Because of softness their politicians get away with this to fool the people.

Yea we know those bases would be target #1.. But it is not explicitly spelled out and that weakness is why nato is so bold and gets away with things. The US would have a much harder time putting nuclear missiles in Europe if those are strategic nuclear targets and the people know they are.

As for me, I actually find it “refreshing” in a sense whenever an outright, die-hard Zionazi Empire loyalist submits a blog barf over here every once in a while. I remember this “CalDre” specimen from the screamfest which ensued on the blog in April/May last year due to Andrew Korybko’s outstanding submission on the Night Wolves’ (Russian motorbikers) commemoration of the Soviet Red Army’s march on Berlin 70 years before. Certainly not too pleasant a festivity in the eyes of people sharing CalDre’s firm commitment to ‘European values’ and ‘Western Democracy’ like the vanquished German Nazis of yesteryear. 10 years on, Hitler’s top brass reembarked on their military careers in the Bundeswehr as part of West Germany’s admission into NATO. CalDre might beg to differ, but facts are stubborn things: When given the choice between “totalitarian communism” and “Western democracy”, a proud, ardent Nazi doesn’t hesitate even for a moment. This way, the GDR got a good start since the Nazis purged themselves voluntarily out of the Soviet occupation zone. Ideology works miracles sometimes.

Now, let’s be blunt here: It matters very little if at all what Gorbachev was told by the adorable spokespeople of the Zionazi Empire. If indeed a “solemn promise” was made to the effect that NATO wouldn’t gobble up Eastern Europe, only imbeciles, cowards, and outright traitors such as Gorbachev and the Russian Liberals would ever be fooled by it. A suchlike “promise” would be a deliberate, contemptuous, totally silly joke right from the start. I think there is a grain of beauty in CalDre’s defence of NATO — like a chunk of excrement covered with perfume. To wit: NATO only broke the “promise” of not gobbling up Eastern Germany. Gobbling up Eastern Europe and wreaking havoc in the Balkans — big deal. Zionazi apologetics have “a certain something”, that’s for sure.

“This reflects Western inability to come to terms with the reality of the Russian Chinese strategic partnership, rather than in any lack of importance fot this issue.

The very unwillingness – or inability – of Westerners to talk about it, is in fact a sign of its importance.”

Excellent point. I learned that long ago on Jewish zionist (mostly stealth zionist of the fake left persuasion) run discussion sites. If the subject was one they did not want exposed, they would ignore comments about it. Later they would target the transgressor and see to their removal from the site. In the professional zio-media (unprofessional, actually, due to the standardized propaganda they engage in and their almost universal adolescent gay manner of delivering the toss), anyone who dissents is sacked and blacklisted for life.

I suppose the word “gay” in your last sentence doesn’t mean homosexual.

All the gay friends I had were so full of it that you could never get a straight answer from them. They purposely try to misdirect you and actually make so much fun of homosexuals it is uncomfortable being around them, just like the straight couple who constantly smooch and caress each other during dinner or when hanging out. Although in Muslim countries it has a death sentence on it, they also have the most homosexuals. No one flaunts it, But when people who you thought were just friendly starts hitting on you.. The word gay is often used outside the US where PCness has not taken a hold off like girly-man which refers to both males and females. Although tomboy is accepted.. So is holding hands or putting your hand on someone else’s shoulder.. This is very common and has nothing to do with a sexual nature.

Guess now that we have freedom, we have to follow western narratives on such things.

The base of it is sexual today I believe. I even remember a time when the word “gay” had a totally different meaning, “wow,we had a gay old time last night” or ” the kids were happy and gay playing outside”,etc,etc. But those days are long gone now. It’s almost always meant to refer to homosexuality in some way today. The only time that might be different is with non-native English speakers. They might understand and use it in the real original dictionary meaning. Not knowing the new slang meaning.

Dear Alexander Mercouris
Let’s call spade a spade. It means our struggle is futile if we use wrong terminology.
I want to say that there are NOT WESTERN media …they are the Natoists’ [ or nato ] media.
It is the only correct name, the rest is misleading.

“Bild” is an horrible Pamphlet , but its Mastermind is not a dumb fool.

The same as “Der Stüermer” in Nazi Germany was a horrible antisemitic pamphlet ,but its Mastermind was Julius Streicher who reportedly had an CI over 150 ,as stated in the tests they made to the Nazis in Nuremberg.

Ok…

Kai Dieckmann is member of “Atlantikbrücke” , a thinktank founded in 1952 and with strong relations to Rothschild Bankers , the german equivalents to AIPAC , Aspen-Institute , CFR , Trilateral commission etc etc.

I am confused by just passing by.are we as voters in france to send n.sarkozy to the elysees
palace or his laughingly called socialist doppelganger,president lambretta?the former(50million euros safely tucked under the matelas) or the latter,destroying the economy and former french colonies?for example Mali.

I think it will be either Sarkozy or Le Pen. If I was a betting man,I’d bet on Sarkozy winning ,certainly if it goes to a 2nd round vote. I find him repulsive. But he seems to be trying to distance himself from his old lapdog pro-US image. Sort of the “leopard changing his spots” effect. So he might not be as pro-US today as Hollande is. But still he’s repulsive to me from his past. I’m not much for “forgive and forget” with political leaders.

As for the Rose, I think that he was sticking to drawn up script, which was intended to insult Putin to see if he loses his composure. Unfortunately for Rose and his handlers Putin is way above their intelligence and wits.

“As he says – without doubt truthfully – he was simply unaware of Merkel’s fear of dogs when he introduced his dog to her, and he apologised to her when he found out about it.”

Putin is a very kind man and he obviously loves animals, poor dog, having to meet Merkel, he was surely frightened of her… Love makes the world go round, not fear, or hate. Perhaps Putin could have had a quiet word with her beforehand and taught her to say “I love you” in Russian, that way the dog would have felt safe.

Hmm, the KGB or their equivalent didnt know that Merkle was afraid of dogs?! Or never Briefed Putin. No chance, that was just a bit of canny psycological warfare from the master and diseminating afterwards.

amazing , such incredible grasp of the whole matter..
the Indian genocide condemns America from the beginning. It is really a law that wickedness does not repent until it is destroyed … they can’t repent

German foreign Ministry: Russia increasingly clearly manifests itself in the Balkans…
DW: Presently there is an active debate concerning strengthening of the role of Russia in the Balkans. In particular, there is an opinion that Moscow is trying to use Serbia as a springboard. How do you assess the situation?

Ernst Reichel [representative of the German foreign Ministry]: I trust the strategic course of Serbia’s rapprochement with the EU and with the West. It is true that Russia increasingly clearly formulates its interests in the Balkans, but for us who believe in the attractiveness of the European and Euro-Atlantic prospects, Russia’s actions are not the main motive of our policy in the Balkans. We have a fundamental interest that this region, which concerns Europe, continues its development in the right direction and as a result becomes part of the European continent in the political sense…

Reading about what Putin said, helps elaborate, extend, or clarify what he said. So does writing about what he said. Sharing ideas is a thought-good factor, not just a feel-good one. If I could, I’d sit down with him and talk bout what he said.

Perhaps. But does what he said need elaboration, extension or clarification? Probably not so much as he was quite articulate. I for one do not welcome someone else trying to put their spin on it. It’s like listening to the State of the Union Address, then listening to the “journalists” trying to tell you what was just said. The latter is insulting, and superfluous except for propaganda purposes.

On the other hand, discussion about specific issues is a worthwhile endeavor and very different. The earlier post that reproduced the interview was sufficient, and should have provided the forum you desire. If the comments get ignored because the post gets stale, then that is another matter. That should not be addressed by a “journalist” blathering on about what Putin said, at least to my taste.

The inscrutable gaze of the wise Mercouris will not enlighten us as to whether your comment was disparaging or not. (Disparagement comes from the Old French desparagier, meaning “marry someone of unequal rank.”)

Discrepancies of rank being void in the marriage of true minds:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no; it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests, and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

The part of the interview which made me chuckle was when Putin talked about western propaganda trying to spoil the good relations between the german and the russian people – and the Bild people reacted with astonishment and disbelief. Here, I would like to point out rule 3) of the internal rules of the Axel Springer media group which owns ‘Bild’

The five socio-political corporate principles, formulated by Axel Springer in 1967, changed after the reunification in 1990 and supplemented in 2001, are part of the corporate statutes. They paint a liberal worldview:

[…]

3. The support of the transatlantic alliance and solidarity in the common values of the United States of America.

Sitemap

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.